New California Workplace Laws in 2025: What Employers Should Know

New Year’s Resolutions aren’t the only changes in 2025 — California passed a number of new employment laws affecting the workplace this year. Unlike resolutions that may have been abandoned by now, there are already efforts by various California agencies to enforce some of these new laws. Below are some of the more important laws for employers to pay attention to this year, all effective as of January 1, 2025, unless otherwise noted.

Leaves of Absence, Paid Sick Leave, and Paid Family Leave

Paid Sick Leave Use by Victims of Violence: AB 2499

Expanding on California’s existing laws providing leave and accommodation to crime victims and their families, AB 2499 allows employees to use their paid sick leave entitlements to assist a family member who is the victim of a “qualifying act of violence,” which is defined in the law as:

• Domestic violence
• Sexual assault
• Stalking
• Any act, conduct, or pattern of conduct that includes: (1) an individual causing bodily injury or death to another; (2) an individual exhibiting, drawing, brandishing, or using a firearm or other dangerous weapon, with respect to another; or (3) an individual using or making a reasonably perceived or actual threat of use of force against another to cause physical injury or death

Employers are required to provide written notice of worker rights under this law to new hires and annually to all employees. Written notice is also required any time an employee requests information pertaining to his or her rights under this law and if an employee informs an employer that the employee (or employee’s family member) is a victim of violence. The Civil Rights Department (CRD) is required to publish a form notice by July 1, 2025. Employers may use the form notice or provide its own notice that is “substantially similar in content and clarity.” However, employers are not required to comply with these notice requirements until the CRD posts its form notice.

In anticipation of the CRD’s form notice publication, employers should review and update not only their policies, but also their on-boarding checklists to ensure all new hires receive the necessary notice.

Procedurally, AB 2499 also moves the jury, court, and victim time off provisions of California law under the umbrella of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and, thus, under the enforcement authority of the CRD.

Paid Family Leave: AB 2123

California’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) program provides up to eight weeks of partial-wage-replacement benefits to employees who need to take time off from work either to bond with a new child, care for a seriously ill family member, or participate in a “qualifying exigency” relating to a family member’s military deployment to a foreign country.¹ Modifying existing law, AB 2123 prohibits employers from requiring employees to use up to two weeks of accrued vacation time before receiving PFL benefits from the state. Employers should review and revise any policies or handbooks accordingly.

Beginning January 1, 2025, many new PFL claims will also be paid higher benefit amounts. While these payments come from the state, the increased benefit amounts may impact employers in cities and counties where local ordinances require employers to supplemental PFL benefits under certain circumstances, like San Francisco’s Paid Parental Leave Ordinance.

Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation

Expansion of Protected Characteristics Under Civil Rights Laws: SB 1137 and AB 1815

Expanding on California’s already-expansive civil rights laws, these laws broaden the enumerated protected characteristics of two of the most prominent such laws: the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Specifically, SB 1137 clarifies that both statutes (along with the Educational Equity Chapter) not only preclude discrimination based on the enumerated protected bases, but also preclude discrimination based on any combination of those characteristics. Similarly, while existing law prohibits discrimination based on traits “historically associated with race,” AB 1815 removes the term “historically” from the definition of race² and harmonizes the definitions of race under the statutes.

The stated purpose of the new laws is to recognize the concept of “intersectionality” in the state’s civil rights laws, with the legislature noting that, often times, workplace discrimination or harassment cannot be so neatly reduced to animus directed at a specific component of a person’s identity. However, it is unlikely that this law will necessitate significant changes to employer practices, as any of the discrimination prohibited by SB 1137 and AB 1815 was already likely to be found unlawful under existing law.

Employee Hiring

Restrictions on Requiring Drivers’ Licenses for Job Openings: SB 1100

Between pay transparency laws and ban-the-box legislation, California has recently begun to more strictly legislate the employee hiring process. SB 1100 continues that trend, prohibiting California employers from including a statement on job postings, job advertisements, and job applications and other employment materials, that the applicant must have a valid driver’s license unless an employer can prove that it (1) reasonably suspects that driving will be one of the employee’s duties and (2) reasonably believes that use of an alternative form of transportation (e.g., bike, bus, ride share, etc.) would not be comparable in travel time or cost.

In light of the new law, employers should audit any current (and future) job postings and advertisements, as well as other application materials, to remove any language requiring a valid driver’s license unless it meets the specified exception.

Independent Contractors

Requirements for Freelance Worker Independent Contractor Agreements: SB 988

SB 988 provides minimum requirements for independent contractor agreements for freelance workers, defined as a “person or organization composed of no more than one person, whether or not incorporated or employing a trade name, that is hired or retained as a bona fide independent contractor by a hiring party to provide professional services in exchange for an amount equal to or greater than two hundred and fifty dollars ($250), either by itself or when aggregated with all contracts for services between the same hiring party and independent contractor during the immediately preceding 120 days.”

Specifically, SB 988 requires that agreements between “hiring parties”³ and freelance workers must not only be written, but also must include the following items:

• Name and address of both the freelance worker and the hiring party
• A list of the services to be provided by the freelancer, including the value of the services and the compensation method
• Either the date of payment or the mechanism for determining the payment date
• The date by which the freelancer must submit his or her list of services rendered to the hiring party for purposes of timely payment

The law also provides that freelance workers must be paid on time pursuant to the contract or, in absence of an agreed payment date, within 30 days of completion of services under the contract. Once the freelance worker begins services under the contract, hiring parties are prohibited from conditioning timely payment on the freelancer either accepting less payment than what is specified in the contract or providing more goods, services, or intellectual property rights than agreed to in the contract.

Hiring parties must retain their agreements with freelance workers for no less than four years.

The law contains an anti-discrimination provision protecting freelance workers for seeking to enforce rights under the law, opposing practices prohibited by the law, or participating in proceedings related to the enforcement of the law.

Notably, the law contains potentially stiff penalties for noncompliance, creating a private right of action for freelancers that potentially allows for attorneys’ fees and costs, a $1,000 penalty if a hiring party refuses to furnish a written contract, and, for untimely payments, up to twice the amount that was unpaid at the time payment was due.

Employer-Employee Relations

California Bans Captive-Audience Meetings on Political or Religious Matters: SB 399

In November 2024, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136, ruling that so-called captive-audience meetings (i.e., mandatory meetings where an employer shares its views on union activity) violate the National Labor Relations Act.

Following the NLRB’s lead, SB 399 (known as the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act) makes it unlawful for most private and public California employers to take an adverse employment action against an employee because the employee declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or participate in any communication with an employer, where the purpose is for the employer to communicate its opinion about “religious or political matters.” For purposes of the new law, “political matters” is defined to mean matters “relating to elections for political office, political parties, legislation, regulation, and the decision to join or support any political party or political or labor organization,” and “religious matters” is defined to mean matters “relating to religious affiliation and practice and the decision to join or support any religious organization or association.”

The law also clarifies that a worker who is working at the time of any such meeting and elects not to attend must still continue to be paid while the meeting is being held.

SB 399 also creates a private right of action with significant penalties, including damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and civil penalties of $500 per employee for each violation, which, depending on the size of the workforce, can make for a pretty expensive captive-audience meeting.

Business groups have already challenged the legality of SB 399. Unless and until the law is limited by the courts, California employers — both public and private — should instruct managers and supervisors regarding this law and the limitations on holding mandatory meetings on prohibited topics.

New Workplace Posting Requirements

Whistleblower Rights Posting: AB 2299

AB 2299 requires employers to post the state Labor Commissioner’s model list of employee rights and responsibilities under existing whistleblower laws. A template of the whistleblower notice is available for use.

Workers’ Compensation Legal Advice Notice: AB 1870

AB 1870 expands on existing California law regarding workers’ compensation notice posting requirements. Under the law, posters must now include all of the following pieces of information:

• How to get emergency medical treatment, if needed
• The kinds of events, injuries, and illnesses covered by workers’ compensation
• The injured employee’s right to receive medical care
• The injured employee’s right to consult a licensed attorney to advise them of their rights under workers’ compensation laws; in most instances, attorney’s fees will be paid from an injured employee’s recovery
• The rights of the employee to select and change the treating physician
• The rights of the employee to receive temporary disability indemnity, permanent disability indemnity, supplemental job displacement, and death benefits, as appropriate
• To whom injuries should be reported
• The existence of time limits for the employer to be notified of an occupational injury
• Protections against discrimination
• The internet website address and contact information that employees may use to obtain further information about the workers’ compensation claims process and an injured employee’s rights and obligations, including the location and telephone number of the nearest information and assistance officer

Voluntary Social Compliance Audit Posting: AB 3234

AB 3234 provides that employers who conduct a voluntary “social compliance audit” must publish the audit’s findings with respect to child labor in a “clear and conspicuous link” on the company’s website. For purposes of the law, a “social compliance audit” is defined to be any “voluntary, nongovernmental inspection or assessment of an employer’s operations or practices to evaluate whether the operations or practices are in compliance with state and federal labor laws, including, but not limited to, wage and hour and health and safety regulations, including those regarding child labor.”

To be clear, this law does not mandate that employer’s engage in this type of audit — it only creates an obligation where an employer chooses to audit its practices and, even then, only with respect to any findings regarding the employer’s compliance with child labor laws. The disclosure posting only requires findings related to “child labor” and requires the following information to be included with the report:

• The year, month, day, and time the audit was conducted, and whether the audit was conducted during a day shift or night shift
• Whether the employer did or did not engage in, or support the use of, child labor
• A copy of any written policies and procedures the employer has and had regarding child employees
• Whether the employer exposed children to any workplace situations that were hazardous or unsafe to their physical and mental health and development
• Whether children worked within or outside regular school hours, or during night hours, for the employer
• A statement that the auditing company is not a government agency and is not authorized to verify compliance with state and federal labor laws or other health and safety regulations

Given this law, companies should consider having any review or audit of compliance with regulations be conducted by outside counsel for a company to maintain the attorney-client nature of such audit.

Employment Litigation

Small Employer Mediation Program Expanded to Include Reproductive Loss Leave Claims: AB 2011

AB 2011 expands the existing Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program (the Program). Under the law, which covers employers with five to 19 employees, the Program now allows small employers to seek mediation to resolve allegations of violations of California’s reproductive loss leave, in addition to alleged violations of the family care and medical and bereavement leave laws.

The Program requires the CRD to initiate mediation within 60 days following a request. As a benefit to small employers, once a dispute is submitted to mediation, employees are prohibited from pursuing civil action until mediation is complete or deemed unsuccessful. Participation in the Program also tolls the statute of limitations for the employee’s claim until the mediation is completed or deemed unsuccessful.

Workplace Violence Restraining Order Law Expanded to Allow Employer TROs for Harassed Employees: SB 428

SB 428 allows employers to seek temporary restraining orders (TROs) against individuals, on behalf of employees who have suffered harassment, defined in the law as: “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress.”
This expands on existing law, which already allows employers to seek TROs for employee victims of workplace violence or threats of violence.

Minimum Wage Increases

Minimum wage increased statewide to $16.50 per hour (up from $16.00 per hour). As a result, the minimum salary to maintain an employee’s exempt status also increased to $68,640 annually or $5,720 monthly.

Employers taking advantage of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) wage and hour exemptions should compensate relevant employees at least $21.45 per hour⁴ to ensure that the CBA exemption still applies. Otherwise, the exemption may no longer apply to those employees and pay will be in strict compliance with California law.

There are also industry- or geography-specific minimum wage changes (or potential changes) that employers should be aware of.

Fast food workers must be paid $20 per hour as of April 1, 2024. As of January 1, 2025, the California Fast Food Council is authorized to increase further by up to 3.5% but has not opted to do so yet.

Certain health care industry employees must be paid $23 per hour through June 30, 2025, and thereafter will increase to $24 per hour. By July 1, 2026, minimum wage for these employees is set to increase to $26 per hour.

The health care related minimum wage increase applies to covered health care facility employers with 10,000 or more full-time equivalent employees, any covered health care facility employer that is a part of an integrated health care delivery system or health care system with 10,000 or more full-time equivalent employees, any covered health care facility employer that is a dialysis clinic as defined in Health and Safety Code § 1204(b)⁵ or that is a person that owns, controls, or operates a dialysis clinic, or a covered health facility owned, affiliated, or operated by a county with a population of more than 5 million people as of January 1, 2023.

A complete list of covered health care facilities can be found under Section 1182.14(b)(3)(A). Notable covered facilities include:

• Facilities or other work sites that are part of an integrated health care delivery system
• Licensed general acute care hospitals (as defined)
• Urgent care clinics and community clinics licensed under Health and Safety Code § 1204
• Clinics operated by any political subdivisions of the state, including the University of California or a city or county that is exempt from licensure under Health and Safety Code § 1206(b)

A complete list of excluded employers can be found under Section 1182.14(b)(3)(B). Notable excluded facilities include:

• Health care facilities owned, controlled, or operated by the state or state agency of the executive branch
• Tribal clinics exempt from licensure under Health and Safety Code § 1206(b)

Employers should audit employee payroll and make any necessary increases to meet new minimum wage standards, including increasing the compensation of exempt employees to comply with the minimum salary test. Employers should also pay attention to any city or county ordinances with higher minimum wage increases.

* *  *

The above advisory was created by Labor and Employment attorneys at Arnold & Porter’s San Francisco office. The Labor and Employment group can offer a range of services from general advice, reviewing policies and practices for compliance, dispute settlement, litigation, traditional labor work, and more. Should any questions or concerns arise, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed here for additional support.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2025 All Rights Reserved. This Advisory is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.